One hates his telemarketing job. It is frustrating and endlessly
repetitive. He also hates the reactions many people have to the calls.
Another man is a househusband in a very long-term gay relationship.
They aren't in a state that allows gay marriage but have been together
for well over a decade. The man's partner has a regular job. They have
no children from either adoption or previous het relationships.
However, the man "works" as a househusband: he fixes meals, cleans the
house, takes care of laundry, and performs other domestic chores. He
appears fairly satisfied with being a househusband.
In article <1e20a7ce-656a-48bc-a568-c7adcb895...@v22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
"dd...@bellsouth.net" <dd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> One hates his telemarketing job. It is frustrating and endlessly
> repetitive. He also hates the reactions many people have to the calls.
> Another man is a househusband in a very long-term gay relationship.
> They aren't in a state that allows gay marriage but have been together
> for well over a decade. The man's partner has a regular job. They have
> no children from either adoption or previous het relationships.
> However, the man "works" as a househusband: he fixes meals, cleans the
> house, takes care of laundry, and performs other domestic chores. He
> appears fairly satisfied with being a househusband.
> Which of these men is better off?
I don't know what you're fishing for, Denise, but philosophically, we can't really say. Let's try this hypothetical:
Karen is a career woman who hates her job as a lawyer. She spends hours filling out paperwork and dealing with miserable bosses who treat her like a clerk. Despite earning a decent salary by working class standards, most of her money goes to a mortgage of a home in the suburbs that's underwater. She rarely sees her children.
Jackie is a housewife to a plumber. She cooks and cleans for him and does his dirty laundry. She's happy with that role and even insisted upon it when choosing a spouse. She wanted a husband who would allow her to quit her job and stay at home full time.
In 2nd wave feminism (or 3rd wave, blah blah blah), feminists proclaimed that Jackie was a brainwashed slave who was secretly miserable while Karen would be living the fantasy life of independence and equality with men.
But even so, we still don't know if they're _happy_ or not. One may appear happy in their "job" while the other is miserable, but as men have known for several thousands of years and women still don't have a clue about, life isn't ONLY about one's job. Many men come home from a rotten job and in a matter of moments, forget all about it and are happy to have a wife that loves them and kids to go weekend fishing with.
That was the life for most men and while many of them were miserable because of their work, many also didn't let it get them too far down.
And heck, if you watch any of The Housewives of X series on Bravo, it demonstrates that affluent housewives (and many career women on the show) are miserable and half of the mare divorced within a few seasons.
So who knows? Maybe the guy with the lousy telemarketing job has a decent wife and is quite happy while the gay guy is miserable with the "husband" even if he likes not having to go to paid employment.
It's tax time and worth pointing out that any SAH "partner" whose unmarried and being supported by someone else should consider getting a small part time job, even for a month or so, to qualify for the earned income tax credit. It's basically a minimum salary and they would get paid basically for working only a little bit.
> In article
> <1e20a7ce-656a-48bc-a568-c7adcb895...@v22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> "dd...@bellsouth.net" <dd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > One hates his telemarketing job. It is frustrating and endlessly
> > repetitive. He also hates the reactions many people have to the calls.
> > Another man is a househusband in a very long-term gay relationship.
> > They aren't in a state that allows gay marriage but have been together
> > for well over a decade. The man's partner has a regular job. They have
> > no children from either adoption or previous het relationships.
> > However, the man "works" as a househusband: he fixes meals, cleans the
> > house, takes care of laundry, and performs other domestic chores. He
> > appears fairly satisfied with being a househusband.
> > Which of these men is better off?
> I don't know what you're fishing for, Denise, but philosophically, we
> can't really say. Let's try this hypothetical:
> Karen is a career woman who hates her job as a lawyer. She spends hours
> filling out paperwork and dealing with miserable bosses who treat her
> like a clerk. Despite earning a decent salary by working class
> standards, most of her money goes to a mortgage of a home in the suburbs
> that's underwater. She rarely sees her children.
> Jackie is a housewife to a plumber. She cooks and cleans for him and
> does his dirty laundry. She's happy with that role and even insisted
> upon it when choosing a spouse. She wanted a husband who would allow
> her to quit her job and stay at home full time.
> In 2nd wave feminism (or 3rd wave, blah blah blah), feminists proclaimed
> that Jackie was a brainwashed slave who was secretly miserable while
> Karen would be living the fantasy life of independence and equality with
> men.
> But even so, we still don't know if they're _happy_ or not. One may
> appear happy in their "job" while the other is miserable, but as men
> have known for several thousands of years and women still don't have a
> clue about, life isn't ONLY about one's job. >>
(Denise) The first book by Arianna Huffington, "The Female Woman,"
which I consider the best attack on the failings and excesses of
"Women's Lib" ever written, made this point. She wrote that "Women's
Lib" considers paid work "the whole of life" while "The Female Woman"
regards it as "a PART of life."
Many men come home from a
> rotten job and in a matter of moments, forget all about it and are happy
> to have a wife that loves them and kids to go weekend fishing with.
> That was the life for most men and while many of them were miserable
> because of their work, many also didn't let it get them too far down.
> And heck, if you watch any of The Housewives of X series on Bravo, it
> demonstrates that affluent housewives (and many career women on the
> show) are miserable and half of the mare divorced within a few seasons.
> So who knows? Maybe the guy with the lousy telemarketing job has a
> decent wife and is quite happy while the gay guy is miserable with the
> "husband" even if he likes not having to go to paid employment.
(Denise) The telemarketer is single. He lives with a non-sexual
roommate relationship to split expenses. I've asked him whether he
finds his housework -- since he doesn't have a "housewife" he must do
chores when he can -- or the paid job more stressful and he answered,
"I can do the housework at my own pace."
The "Women's Libbers" of the 1970s seemed to see housework as the
worst sort of work. They called it "shitwork." On a tv talk show, a
woman in the audience told women representing the movement, "I think
you want men to do the dusting, vacuuming, scrubbing floors, and
washing dishes." The "Libber" replied, "Why should these boring jobs
be done only by women?" The woman in the audience answered, "I love
doing these chores. I wouldn't want a man to do them" and the audience
applauded enthusiastically. I heard a "Libber" describe being a
housewife as "degrading."
If housework is so terrible, my househusband friend ought to be
miserable. He doesn't seem so.
However, the househusband DOES seem to have a problem common among
housewives: he's uncertain as to whether or not he's doing a good job.
When he told me he cooks both breakfast and dinner for himself and his
partner, I asked, "Are you a good cook?" He replied uncertainly, "I
don't know. I'm probably not an especially good cook." Studies have
found this pervasive among housewives: they don't tend to rate
themselves as either "excellent" or "very good" at their homemaking
tasks.
The man has certain severe health issues so I can't say he's always
super-happy. But he doesn't appear to be upset by performing the
household chores his partner expects of him.
> It's tax time and worth pointing out that any SAH "partner" whose
> unmarried and being supported by someone else should consider getting a
> small part time job, even for a month or so, to qualify for the earned
> income tax credit. It's basically a minimum salary and they would get
> paid basically for working only a little bit.
"dd...@bellsouth.net" <dd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Apr 18, 8:38 pm, PolishKnight <marek1...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <1e20a7ce-656a-48bc-a568-c7adcb895...@v22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> > "dd...@bellsouth.net" <dd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > One hates his telemarketing job. It is frustrating and endlessly
> > > repetitive. He also hates the reactions many people have to the calls.
> > > Another man is a househusband in a very long-term gay relationship.
> > > They aren't in a state that allows gay marriage but have been together
> > > for well over a decade. The man's partner has a regular job. They have
> > > no children from either adoption or previous het relationships.
> > > However, the man "works" as a househusband: he fixes meals, cleans the
> > > house, takes care of laundry, and performs other domestic chores. He
> > > appears fairly satisfied with being a househusband.
> > > Which of these men is better off?
> > I don't know what you're fishing for, Denise, but philosophically, we
> > can't really say. Let's try this hypothetical:
> > Karen is a career woman who hates her job as a lawyer. She spends hours
> > filling out paperwork and dealing with miserable bosses who treat her
> > like a clerk. Despite earning a decent salary by working class
> > standards, most of her money goes to a mortgage of a home in the suburbs
> > that's underwater. She rarely sees her children.
> > Jackie is a housewife to a plumber. She cooks and cleans for him and
> > does his dirty laundry. She's happy with that role and even insisted
> > upon it when choosing a spouse. She wanted a husband who would allow
> > her to quit her job and stay at home full time.
> > In 2nd wave feminism (or 3rd wave, blah blah blah), feminists proclaimed
> > that Jackie was a brainwashed slave who was secretly miserable while
> > Karen would be living the fantasy life of independence and equality with
> > men.
> > But even so, we still don't know if they're happy or not. One may
> > appear happy in their "job" while the other is miserable, but as men
> > have known for several thousands of years and women still don't have a
> > clue about, life isn't ONLY about one's job. >>
> (Denise) The first book by Arianna Huffington, "The Female Woman,"
> which I consider the best attack on the failings and excesses of
> "Women's Lib" ever written, made this point. She wrote that "Women's
> Lib" considers paid work "the whole of life" while "The Female Woman"
> regards it as "a PART of life."
Sadly, a lot of American men have forgotten this lesson as well.
Europeans have a saying: When you ask an American what he does, he'll tell you about his job. When you ask a European, they tell you about their hobbies and personal interests.
Arianna went over the deep end for some reason after her husband came out as gay and she fell in with the wrong crowd. That must have really messed her up.
> Many men come home from a
> > rotten job and in a matter of moments, forget all about it and are happy
> > to have a wife that loves them and kids to go weekend fishing with.
> > That was the life for most men and while many of them were miserable
> > because of their work, many also didn't let it get them too far down.
> > And heck, if you watch any of The Housewives of X series on Bravo, it
> > demonstrates that affluent housewives (and many career women on the
> > show) are miserable and half of the mare divorced within a few seasons.
> > So who knows? Maybe the guy with the lousy telemarketing job has a
> > decent wife and is quite happy while the gay guy is miserable with the
> > "husband" even if he likes not having to go to paid employment.
> (Denise) The telemarketer is single. He lives with a non-sexual
> roommate relationship to split expenses. I've asked him whether he
> finds his housework -- since he doesn't have a "housewife" he must do
> chores when he can -- or the paid job more stressful and he answered,
> "I can do the housework at my own pace."
> The "Women's Libbers" of the 1970s seemed to see housework as the
> worst sort of work. They called it "shitwork." On a tv talk show, a
> woman in the audience told women representing the movement, "I think
> you want men to do the dusting, vacuuming, scrubbing floors, and
> washing dishes." The "Libber" replied, "Why should these boring jobs
> be done only by women?" The woman in the audience answered, "I love
> doing these chores. I wouldn't want a man to do them" and the audience
> applauded enthusiastically. I heard a "Libber" describe being a
> housewife as "degrading."
I think I told you the tale of when I told a secretary at work that I bought my wife a swiffer for Christmas and the secretary was enraged.
It wasn't because she was a woman's libber but rather a different strain: A so-called traditionalist materialist who expected men to buy her stuff. (It didn't work out for her since she was divorced.)
Let's try looking at it from the other point of view: What do women and children buy the father/husband for father's day and Christmas: Home repair tools and auto tools. In other words, tools for him to do work around the house and gardening. And the men ENJOY these tools!
So back in the 1950's, it wasn't considered offensive to buy women housewifery tools such as vacuums and dishwashers for Christmas. Game shows (such as Queen for a Day and The Price Is Right) commonly gave these away with the women jumping up and down with glee.
> If housework is so terrible, my househusband friend ought to be
> miserable. He doesn't seem so.
> However, the househusband DOES seem to have a problem common among
> housewives: he's uncertain as to whether or not he's doing a good job.
> When he told me he cooks both breakfast and dinner for himself and his
> partner, I asked, "Are you a good cook?" He replied uncertainly, "I
> don't know. I'm probably not an especially good cook." Studies have
> found this pervasive among housewives: they don't tend to rate
> themselves as either "excellent" or "very good" at their homemaking
> tasks.
> The man has certain severe health issues so I can't say he's always
> super-happy. But he doesn't appear to be upset by performing the
> household chores his partner expects of him.
Of course not. For most people, becoming a housewife (in this case, we can call him a housewife! :-) is a step up in employment terms: Their overall benefits package is much greater than a normal job, they get to set their own hours, and they're taking care of their own home.
It says something amazing that someone could make a socially accepted case that such women were being oppressed. It reminds me of Marie Antoinette's supposed gripe about eating cake except nobody called these women on such a ridiculous claim.
Keep in mind that nobody tells these women that they have to watch soap operas during their time off. They could spend their time helping out at charities (and not just using charities as an excuse to party such as the Real Housewives series :-), they could engage in crafts, or they could even take a few classes and take risks with time that many men only dream of: Try writing a best selling novel or teaching an at home ballet class. The opportunities are in many ways as limitless as what "independent" women and men have in the formal, pay the bills, workplace.
> > It's tax time and worth pointing out that any SAH "partner" whose
> > unmarried and being supported by someone else should consider getting a
> > small part time job, even for a month or so, to qualify for the earned
> > income tax credit. It's basically a minimum salary and they would get
> > paid basically for working only a little bit.
> One hates his telemarketing job. It is frustrating and endlessly
> repetitive.
does he have a big dick?! i'll bet he wouldn't hate his telemarketing job as much if i were under his desk being endlessly repetitive with my head, lips and tongue
> He also hates the reactions many people have to the calls.
i would love his reaction if it involved shooting off down my throat ?
> Another man is a househusband in a very long-term gay relationship.
> They aren't in a state that allows gay marriage but have been together
> for well over a decade. The man's partner has a regular job. They have
> no children from either adoption or previous het relationships.
> However, the man "works" as a househusband: he fixes meals, cleans the
> house, takes care of laundry, and performs other domestic chores. He
> appears fairly satisfied with being a househusband.
i would be fairly satisfied if i could get in bed between both of them
On Apr 19, 9:12 pm, PolishKnight <marek1...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article
> Arianna went over the deep end for some reason after her husband came
> out as gay and she fell in with the wrong crowd. That must have really
> messed her up.
(Denise) Actually, there are consistent threads throughout her career.
One of the reasons she was "repulsed" by "Women's Lib" was that they
eschewed and ridiculed altruism. She found this same flaw among
standard conservatives. The importance of altruism is a consistent
thread in her belief system.
Additionally, the principles of "The Female Woman" have never been
repudiated by her. She still believes strongly in the importance of
marriage and family life.
She still opposes the "Women's Lib" dream of the world as a gigantic
orphanage and the destruction of marriage.
In article <69b23c73-2d6b-405d-a1e7-6cb5c9f33...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
"dd...@bellsouth.net" <dd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Apr 19, 9:12 pm, PolishKnight <marek1...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > Arianna went over the deep end for some reason after her husband came
> > out as gay and she fell in with the wrong crowd. That must have really
> > messed her up.
> (Denise) Actually, there are consistent threads throughout her career.
> One of the reasons she was "repulsed" by "Women's Lib" was that they
> eschewed and ridiculed altruism. She found this same flaw among
> standard conservatives. The importance of altruism is a consistent
> thread in her belief system.
Denise, what a joke. She's now a seething leftist who associates herself with those who despise working class whites and still hangs around the Manhattan snobby liberal set which worships gluttony and displays of wealth.
I think she just wanted to thumb her nose at her closet gay Republican ex-husband.
This isn't the first time that people have switched ideologies due to love. David Brock, a landmark conservative who exposed Anita Hill's fake "traditional" conservativism later converted over to the left because of his homosexuality and desire to fit in with gay culture. Ted Turner converted from a conservative to a raging leftist out of love for Jane Fonda (bleah!) and stayed that way even after their divorce.
> Additionally, the principles of "The Female Woman" have never been
> repudiated by her. She still believes strongly in the importance of
> marriage and family life. She still opposes the "Women's Lib" dream of the world as a gigantic
> orphanage and the destruction of marriage.
I don't hang out at the Huffington Post, but I doubt this based upon her political affiliation.
One thing I'd like to add is that Phyllis Schlafly made a correct
observation when she pointed out that modern inventions to a large
extent made the job of housewife less onerous than it had been in the
past. Those inventions include vacuum cleaners, washing machines and
dryers, dishwashers, microwaves, and (for those housewives who are
also mothers of infants) disposable diapers. All of these modern
inventions make housework and other domestic chores easier and less
time consuming.
My friend who is a househusband also benefits from these inventions
since it is a lot easier to clean clothes with a washing machine, to
clean floors with a vacuum cleaner, etc.
If there was actually a plot by men to ensure that women get a lousy
deal in this "man's world," one would think such items would be banned
so domestic jobs would be as onerous as possible. Instead, men are
usually quite happy to allow women these very helpful aids in what has
traditionally been called "women's work."
On Apr 21, 7:55 am, "dd...@bellsouth.net" <dd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Apr 19, 9:12 pm, PolishKnight <marek1...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > Arianna went over the deep end for some reason after her husband came
> > out as gay and she fell in with the wrong crowd. That must have really
> > messed her up.
> (Denise) Actually, there are consistent threads throughout her career.
> One of the reasons she was "repulsed" by "Women's Lib" was that they
> eschewed and ridiculed altruism. She found this same flaw among
> standard conservatives. The importance of altruism is a consistent
> thread in her belief system.
what a fucking joke
doubtless altruism is an Important Systemic Belief of western
women . . . unfortunately they dont ACTUALLY PRACTICE IT, as is proven
by their "charitable contributing" which overwhelmingly is directed at
women-and-children (i.e. themselves) and almost NEVER at Those Evil
Males
Huffie will rot in hell, with her manhattan mammy monsters grouped
around her in solidarity
> Additionally, the principles of "The Female Woman" have never been
> repudiated by her. She still believes strongly in the importance of
> marriage and family life.
> She still opposes the "Women's Lib" dream of the world as a gigantic
> orphanage and the destruction of marriage.
she's a feminist ideologue and a matriarchal enabler, who like so many
other women prior, turned to destroying masculinity in total when she
began to age/lose sexual power over men
at that point she directed her energy towards fem-propaganda thru the
PuffHo, spicing it up with just enough Relational Drivel to draw in
The Grrls and make it seem like the hate-site is doing the planet a
great favor as a Voice of Truth
> On Apr 21, 7:55 am, "dd...@bellsouth.net" <dd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Apr 19, 9:12 pm, PolishKnight <marek1...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > Arianna went over the deep end for some reason after her husband came
> > > out as gay and she fell in with the wrong crowd. That must have really
> > > messed her up.
> > (Denise) Actually, there are consistent threads throughout her career.
> > One of the reasons she was "repulsed" by "Women's Lib" was that they
> > eschewed and ridiculed altruism. She found this same flaw among
> > standard conservatives. The importance of altruism is a consistent
> > thread in her belief system.
> what a fucking joke
> doubtless altruism is an Important Systemic Belief of western
> women . . . unfortunately they dont ACTUALLY PRACTICE IT, as is proven
> by their "charitable contributing" which overwhelmingly is directed at
> women-and-children (i.e. themselves) and almost NEVER at Those Evil
> Males
(Denise) In "The Female Woman," she pointed out that altruism is vital
to women's roles as wives and mothers. She also pointed out that most
women "hold dear" the practices of marriage and the mother-child bond.
They don't look forward to a marriage and family-less future.
> Huffie will rot in hell, with her manhattan mammy monsters grouped
> around her in solidarity
> > Additionally, the principles of "The Female Woman" have never been
> > repudiated by her. She still believes strongly in the importance of
> > marriage and family life.
> > She still opposes the "Women's Lib" dream of the world as a gigantic
> > orphanage and the destruction of marriage.
> she's a feminist ideologue and a matriarchal enabler, who like so many
> other women prior, turned to destroying masculinity in total when she
> began to age/lose sexual power over men
> at that point she directed her energy towards fem-propaganda thru the
> PuffHo, spicing it up with just enough Relational Drivel to draw in
> The Grrls and make it seem like the hate-site is doing the planet a
> great favor as a Voice of Truth
> LOL!!
(Denise) "The Female Woman" strongly supported family life and
marriage.
In article <c997a1ab-ba31-47ba-842d-22845c32a...@n22g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
"dd...@bellsouth.net" <dd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> One thing I'd like to add is that Phyllis Schlafly made a correct
> observation when she pointed out that modern inventions to a large
> extent made the job of housewife less onerous than it had been in the
> past. Those inventions include vacuum cleaners, washing machines and
> dryers, dishwashers, microwaves, and (for those housewives who are
> also mothers of infants) disposable diapers. All of these modern
> inventions make housework and other domestic chores easier and less
> time consuming.
True. Ironically, however, like much technology they only changed the type of the work rather than it's scope. Instead of beating the rugs once a month, a proper housewife would vacuum once a week or more.
Instead of washing a single set of clothes a week, they wash every article of clothing daily, etc.
Many modern career women trying to balance career and home simply lowered the bar from their 1950's era mothers. It was not uncommon for me to meet career women who lived in a pig sty and had a sink full of dishes they hadn't bothered to put in the dishwasher and empty, hadn't vacuumed in months, and sent out their clothing to be dry cleaned at a great expense.
As many soccer moms gripe, some inventions, such as the automobile, actually created more work for them. While children in the past walked to school and got exercise, they now have to ferry the kids to and from school and then to the community gym to get exercise because a "proper" mother today wouldn't risk her darlings being abducted. :-)
> My friend who is a househusband also benefits from these inventions
> since it is a lot easier to clean clothes with a washing machine, to
> clean floors with a vacuum cleaner, etc.
To hell with the vacuum cleaner. Simply get wood floors and then use a water cloth mop to clean every week or so. Done.
> If there was actually a plot by men to ensure that women get a lousy
> deal in this "man's world," one would think such items would be banned
> so domestic jobs would be as onerous as possible. Instead, men are
> usually quite happy to allow women these very helpful aids in what has
> traditionally been called "women's work."
> In article > <c997a1ab-ba31-47ba-842d-22845c32a...@n22g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> "dd...@bellsouth.net" <dd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > One thing I'd like to add is that Phyllis Schlafly made a correct
> > observation when she pointed out that modern inventions to a large
> > extent made the job of housewife less onerous than it had been in the
> > past. Those inventions include vacuum cleaners, washing machines and
> > dryers, dishwashers, microwaves, and (for those housewives who are
> > also mothers of infants) disposable diapers. All of these modern
> > inventions make housework and other domestic chores easier and less
> > time consuming.
> True. Ironically, however, like much technology they only changed the > type of the work rather than it's scope. Instead of beating the rugs > once a month, a proper housewife would vacuum once a week or more.
> Instead of washing a single set of clothes a week, they wash every > article of clothing daily, etc.
Where did this come from? I've never known a woman that washed every
article of clothing daily. I've never even known a women that washed
every article or WORN clothing daily. For most women, washing every article of clothing daily would require running three or four loads
a day!
> Many modern career women trying to balance career and home simply > lowered the bar from their 1950's era mothers. It was not uncommon for > me to meet career women who lived in a pig sty and had a sink full of > dishes they hadn't bothered to put in the dishwasher and empty, hadn't > vacuumed in months, and sent out their clothing to be dry cleaned at a > great expense.
If the clothing wasn't compatible with washing in water, that may have
been an unavoidable expense. However, I doubt that they did so with
every article of clothing every day.
> As many soccer moms gripe, some inventions, such as the automobile, > actually created more work for them.
Why so? Would it have been less work and less time to get the kids
to practice walking or riding bicycles?
> While children in the past walked > to school and got exercise, they now have to ferry the kids to and from > school and then to the community gym to get exercise because a "proper" > mother today wouldn't risk her darlings being abducted. :-)
DOH! Have you never heard of school buses?
> > My friend who is a househusband also benefits from these inventions
> > since it is a lot easier to clean clothes with a washing machine, to
> > clean floors with a vacuum cleaner, etc.
> To hell with the vacuum cleaner. Simply get wood floors and then use a > water cloth mop to clean every week or so. Done.
Worked for me in the military--although they did have us mop daily. But then we had 100 guys walking over the floor, not a family of four.
> > If there was actually a plot by men to ensure that women get a lousy
> > deal in this "man's world," one would think such items would be banned
> > so domestic jobs would be as onerous as possible. Instead, men are
> > usually quite happy to allow women these very helpful aids in what has
> > traditionally been called "women's work."
In article <jnbv6v$eo...@dont-email.me>, "Jenn" <m...@noe.mail.com> wrote:
> PolishKnight wrote:
> <snip>
> > but as men
> > have known for several thousands of years and women still don't have a
> > clue about, life isn't ONLY about one's job.
> > > One thing I'd like to add is that Phyllis Schlafly made a correct
> > > observation when she pointed out that modern inventions to a large
> > > extent made the job of housewife less onerous than it had been in the
> > > past. Those inventions include vacuum cleaners, washing machines and
> > > dryers, dishwashers, microwaves, and (for those housewives who are
> > > also mothers of infants) disposable diapers. All of these modern
> > > inventions make housework and other domestic chores easier and less
> > > time consuming.
> > True. Ironically, however, like much technology they only changed the > > type of the work rather than it's scope. Instead of beating the rugs > > once a month, a proper housewife would vacuum once a week or more.
> > Instead of washing a single set of clothes a week, they wash every > > article of clothing daily, etc.
> Where did this come from? I've never known a woman that washed every
> article of clothing daily. I've never even known a women that washed
> every article or WORN clothing daily. For most women, washing every > article of clothing daily would require running three or four loads
> a day!
Sigh, MarkB, I think you know what I mean by that.
If you're going to make another semantic quibble post, I'm ignoring the rest. I think I'll do something more productive and fun like tuning my gmail spam filters...
Rest deleted and unread. I probably didn't miss much.
> In article<jnbv6v$eo...@dont-email.me>, "Jenn"<m...@noe.mail.com>
> wrote:
>> PolishKnight wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> but as men
>>> have known for several thousands of years and women still don't have a
>>> clue about, life isn't ONLY about one's job.
>> I don't believe that statement is true at all.
> What part?
The part I quoted. I think many women know life isn't only about one's job.
> > In article<jnbv6v$eo...@dont-email.me>, "Jenn"<m...@noe.mail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> PolishKnight wrote:
> >> <snip>
> >>> but as men
> >>> have known for several thousands of years and women still don't have a
> >>> clue about, life isn't ONLY about one's job.
> >> I don't believe that statement is true at all.
> > What part?
> The part I quoted. I think many women know life isn't only about one's job.
> --
> Jenn
(Denise) Most women know this. The "women's libbers" of the 1970s
often spoke and wrote as if nothing but paid work mattered. That was
why they were so negative on homemaking, marriage, and family life.
dd...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Apr 27, 1:12 am, Jenn <n...@ema.il> wrote:
>> On 4/26/2012 8:06 PM, PolishKnight wrote:
>>> In article<jnbv6v$eo...@dont-email.me>, "Jenn"<m...@noe.mail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> PolishKnight wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>> but as men
>>>>> have known for several thousands of years and women still don't
>>>>> have a clue about, life isn't ONLY about one's job.
>>>> I don't believe that statement is true at all.
>>> What part?
>> The part I quoted. I think many women know life isn't only about
>> one's job.
> (Denise) Most women know this. The "women's libbers" of the 1970s
> often spoke and wrote as if nothing but paid work mattered. That was
> why they were so negative on homemaking, marriage, and family life.
That did a terrible disservice to the women who were homemakers, imo.
In article <jnd9rt$et...@dont-email.me>, Jenn <n...@ema.il> wrote:
> On 4/26/2012 8:06 PM, PolishKnight wrote:
> > In article<jnbv6v$eo...@dont-email.me>, "Jenn"<m...@noe.mail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> PolishKnight wrote:
> >> <snip>
> >>> but as men
> >>> have known for several thousands of years and women still don't have a
> >>> clue about, life isn't ONLY about one's job.
> >> I don't believe that statement is true at all.
> > What part?
> The part I quoted. I think many women know life isn't only about one's job.
Perhaps, Jenn, because I started dating out of college most of the "normal" women, as you see them, were already married. It's like when I go to the supermarket on the last day of a sale and all that was left of the Klondike bars on sale were Oreo and Crunchy (as it turned out, my wife and I both liked them! :-) My mother had an expression for when her children bought her Mother's day presents at the last minute: "Mommy's pickin's!" :-)
So a lot of the women who were career focused or just plain focused upon other stuff rather than family also tended to be in the dating pool.
One woman I met wasn't career focused but something worse: She was obsessed with her front lawn. She was spending $200 a month on water bills and trying to suck me into it.
Anyways, when I looked at the personals I saw most of the women's ads or how they responded tended to deny their interest in starting a family.
This was back in the early 90's at a particular stage of feminism when a lot of women were into it. Perhaps now times are different since the notion of "playing it cool" about having a family are impractical for that generation.
> In article<jnd9rt$et...@dont-email.me>, Jenn<n...@ema.il> wrote:
>> On 4/26/2012 8:06 PM, PolishKnight wrote:
>>> In article<jnbv6v$eo...@dont-email.me>, "Jenn"<m...@noe.mail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> PolishKnight wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>> but as men
>>>>> have known for several thousands of years and women still don't have a
>>>>> clue about, life isn't ONLY about one's job.
>>>> I don't believe that statement is true at all.
>>> What part?
>> The part I quoted. I think many women know life isn't only about one's job.
> Perhaps, Jenn, because I started dating out of college most of the
> "normal" women, as you see them, were already married. It's like when I
I dated some men when I was in college and after that, too. :)
> go to the supermarket on the last day of a sale and all that was left of
> the Klondike bars on sale were Oreo and Crunchy (as it turned out, my
> wife and I both liked them! :-) My mother had an expression for when
> her children bought her Mother's day presents at the last minute:
> "Mommy's pickin's!" :-)
> So a lot of the women who were career focused or just plain focused upon
> other stuff rather than family also tended to be in the dating pool.
> One woman I met wasn't career focused but something worse: She was
> obsessed with her front lawn. She was spending $200 a month on water
> bills and trying to suck me into it.
> Anyways, when I looked at the personals I saw most of the women's ads or
> how they responded tended to deny their interest in starting a family.
> This was back in the early 90's at a particular stage of feminism when a
> lot of women were into it. Perhaps now times are different since the
> notion of "playing it cool" about having a family are impractical for
> that generation.
You do have an interesting perspective for sure. I enjoy reading what you have to say.
In article <jniioo$lu...@dont-email.me>, Jenn <n...@ema.il> wrote:
> On 4/28/2012 6:21 PM, PolishKnight wrote:
> > In article<jnd9rt$et...@dont-email.me>, Jenn<n...@ema.il> wrote:
> >> On 4/26/2012 8:06 PM, PolishKnight wrote:
> >>> In article<jnbv6v$eo...@dont-email.me>, "Jenn"<m...@noe.mail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> PolishKnight wrote:
> >>>> <snip>
> >>>>> but as men
> >>>>> have known for several thousands of years and women still don't have a
> >>>>> clue about, life isn't ONLY about one's job.
> >>>> I don't believe that statement is true at all.
> >>> What part?
> >> The part I quoted. I think many women know life isn't only about one's job.
> > Perhaps, Jenn, because I started dating out of college most of the
> > "normal" women, as you see them, were already married. It's like when I
> I dated some men when I was in college and after that, too. :)
> > go to the supermarket on the last day of a sale and all that was left of
> > the Klondike bars on sale were Oreo and Crunchy (as it turned out, my
> > wife and I both liked them! :-) My mother had an expression for when
> > her children bought her Mother's day presents at the last minute:
> > "Mommy's pickin's!" :-)
> > So a lot of the women who were career focused or just plain focused upon
> > other stuff rather than family also tended to be in the dating pool.
> > One woman I met wasn't career focused but something worse: She was
> > obsessed with her front lawn. She was spending $200 a month on water
> > bills and trying to suck me into it.
> > Anyways, when I looked at the personals I saw most of the women's ads or
> > how they responded tended to deny their interest in starting a family.
> > This was back in the early 90's at a particular stage of feminism when a
> > lot of women were into it. Perhaps now times are different since the
> > notion of "playing it cool" about having a family are impractical for
> > that generation.
> You do have an interesting perspective for sure. I enjoy reading what > you have to say.
Thanks Jenn.
In a discussion where MarkB is griping about my misspellings and grammar errors, my main goal is to be interesting and thought provoking.
Another goal is to be as honest as reasonably possible. If I'm putting myself on the line, I think that inspires, or at least nags, other people to also be a little honest with themselves rather than just defending cherished beliefs or their self-image.
USENET, in it's heyday, was entertaining but also rather heated at times. It just refuses to die.
PolishKnight wrote:
> In article <jniioo$lu...@dont-email.me>, Jenn <n...@ema.il> wrote:
>> You do have an interesting perspective for sure. I enjoy reading
>> what you have to say.
> Thanks Jenn.
> In a discussion where MarkB is griping about my misspellings and
> grammar errors, my main goal is to be interesting and thought
> provoking. Another goal is to be as honest as reasonably possible.
> If I'm putting myself on the line, I think that inspires, or at least
> nags, other people to also be a little honest with themselves rather
> than just defending cherished beliefs or their self-image.
> USENET, in it's heyday, was entertaining but also rather heated at
> times. It just refuses to die.
I've searched usenet for people who are open to communicating without all the nastiness that can go along with it. It's nice to find someone like yourself who can actually have interesting discussions like that. :)
> >> You do have an interesting perspective for sure. I enjoy reading
> >> what you have to say.
> > Thanks Jenn.
> > In a discussion where MarkB is griping about my misspellings and
> > grammar errors, my main goal is to be interesting and thought
> > provoking. Another goal is to be as honest as reasonably possible.
> > If I'm putting myself on the line, I think that inspires, or at least
> > nags, other people to also be a little honest with themselves rather
> > than just defending cherished beliefs or their self-image.
> > USENET, in it's heyday, was entertaining but also rather heated at
> > times. It just refuses to die.
> I've searched usenet for people who are open to communicating without all > the nastiness that can go along with it. It's nice to find someone like > yourself who can actually have interesting discussions like that. :)
Thanks.
One way I've really grown (recently) is to actually bite my tongue at family and friends dinners when politics comes up not because I know I won't get nasty but...
they do.
And most of them aren't mature enough to admit it. If someone gets me and wins a point, I may not be happy about it, but I can at least be gracious and respect that they won fair and square (for now.)
On the other hand, when most people get their sacred cows ground up in public, it can get ugly. In the very least, that person will simply decide to try to get you univited to events they are attending.
Yet... on the other hand, even in my more mellow old age I don't want to be afraid to stand up for what I believe in strongly. So I learned to use the guerilla tactic of engagement. Say some thought provoking things to get them (and others) thinking and then when they say "Ok, let's talk about it" and I know where that road is leading, I quietly change the subject. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to engage in a strong debate with them but there are "civilians" around who could be collateral damage.
There's a saying not to discuss religion and politics at social gatherings. I would alter that to say that the reason why it's unsafe to discuss such matters is that for many people, religion and politics are still the same thing and have been for all of history. What's interesting is that there's a modern notion held by some people that their religion isn't a religion at all: the pseudo scientific and rationalist believers whose belief system as faith based (and intolerant) as a 9th century papal tribunal.
PolishKnight wrote:
> On the other hand, when most people get their sacred cows ground up in
> public, it can get ugly. In the very least, that person will simply
> decide to try to get you univited to events they are attending.
> Yet... on the other hand, even in my more mellow old age I don't want
> to be afraid to stand up for what I believe in strongly. So I
> learned to use the guerilla tactic of engagement. Say some thought
> provoking things to get them (and others) thinking and then when they
> say "Ok, let's talk about it" and I know where that road is leading,
> I quietly change the subject. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to engage
> in a strong debate with them but there are "civilians" around who
> could be collateral damage.
Do you have an example of when you've actually done this? It's an interesting approach, which I kind of think I may do something similar, but I'm not sure until I see an example of what you mean.
> > On the other hand, when most people get their sacred cows ground up in
> > public, it can get ugly. In the very least, that person will simply
> > decide to try to get you univited to events they are attending.
> > Yet... on the other hand, even in my more mellow old age I don't want
> > to be afraid to stand up for what I believe in strongly. So I
> > learned to use the guerilla tactic of engagement. Say some thought
> > provoking things to get them (and others) thinking and then when they
> > say "Ok, let's talk about it" and I know where that road is leading,
> > I quietly change the subject. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to engage
> > in a strong debate with them but there are "civilians" around who
> > could be collateral damage.
> Do you have an example of when you've actually done this? It's an > interesting approach, which I kind of think I may do something similar, but > I'm not sure until I see an example of what you mean.
When I heard someone at a party say recently that women weren't paid the same as men, I observed that women could working longer hours and pay men alimony and then things might even out.
I could see her face turn a bit red.
Then I quickly added a comment to draw the topic back to the original reason it was brought up: She was complaining about inflation and I observed that stores were now hiding the increase in the price of sugar by selling 4lb bags at the same price as 5lb a few months ago.
And pretty soon everyone else started talking about that and didn't want to come back.
So the key for me is to keep in mind the direction the conversation is flowing: People talk about A which leads to B and then when I disagree strongly with B, try to get my comment in and move back to A.
Keep in mind that most people don't really THINK about how to manage a conversation anyway. They just blab. I've taken a lot of communication courses so I keep in mind the basic metrics of the conversation and the situation: Do I care about getting invited back here? What point am I trying to make? Would further argument actually change anything?
And of course, sometimes I just let loose and have fun when I know it's ok. That makes it all the more fun!
